Midterm_Exam_POLS_420_1_

.docx

School

California State University, Northridge *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

420

Subject

Political Science

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

2

Uploaded by MateLeopardMaster1019

Question 1 Section(a) Wertheim seems to subscribe to the Jeffersonian tradition. Wertheim advocates for the elimination of policies that seek to spread democratic principles throughout the world, promote diplomacy over military operations, not deepen ties to other nations and to not adopt permanent partnerships or alliances, not to enforce the international liberal order, not worry about US primacy or hegemony in the world, and prevent the US from further being entangled in oversea disputes. Unlike Hamiltonians, Wertheim’s argument that the US should focus on fostering ties with other states to accomplish the decrease of carbon dioxide emissions, an action that can cause economic decline. Unlike the principle of spreading democracy held prominently with Wilsonians, Wertherim contends that the US should have never tried to spread democratic principles throughout the world. Although Wertheim argues that the US should repudiate and denounce nationalism and xenophobia, he never states that the US should compel other states to adopt these approaches to democracy, or a regime for that matter. Wertheim never advocated for unapologetic foreign policy either, a principle held prominently by Jacksonians. Hence, I conclude that Wertheim argued for a tradition that closely resembled Jeffersonianism. Section (b) Wertheim contends that the United States should restrict military options to narrow purposes, and instead focus on issues such as: addressing issues such as climate change, holding tax evaders accountable, refrain from engaging in the spreading of democracy through the use of military force, pursues peace, pursues an international economy that spreads wealth to the impoverished, repudiate nationalist movements, and pursue a sustainable international economy(environmentally wise). In sum, pursue retrenchment, and policies that do not cause Russia or China to feel intimidated, but to work with the states to accomplish goals such as decreasing carbon dioxide emissions.. Wright on the other hand contends that the United States should instead selectively retrench and focus military cooperations with states such as Japan, South Korea, and India to essentially deter Chinese aggression and prevent states from developing nuclear capabilities to counter Chinese aggression. By choosing to retrench, Wright contends that regional security orders will be destabilized, causes states such as Japan to pursue nuclear capabilities to counter China, promote nationalist movements across the globe, create permanent security crises such as the hypothetical Chinese conquest of Asia, and effectively concede to the new order China is trying to impose on the current international system. In sum, Wright would disagree with Wetheim’s argument that the United States should fully retrench and not form meaningful alliances or partnerships with other states to restrict the expansion of Russia and Chinese influence and aggression. Question 2 In his article, Friendberg contends that the United States should pursue a better balancing approach to international relations to preserve US primacy to the longest period possible. To
accomplish this, Friedberg urges the United States to work with partners or traditional allies(multilateral organizations or even bilateral) to strengthen states that are wary of Chinese expansion of power(Japan, India, and South Korea) with the goal of restricting China’s toolset of expansion and influence. That the US should accept that China can longer be contained and to form an economic partnership with China to increase economic prosperity for both the United States and China. He also calls for the promotion of industrialist policies to stimulate growth, for the investment of technological advancement, and the expansion of US military capabilities to ensure that the United States could not be outcompeted by China. For the purposes of this exam, I will compare the better balancing approach with the engagement approach advocated by some political scientists. In addition to the first mentioned approach to China in this response, Friedberg discussed other ideas as to how the United States should approach the United States. Among them is Engagement. The goal of those who advocate for an engagement approach to China is to further entangle Chinese interests with the sustainment of the current international system and to deter Chinese aggression. To accomplish the first goal, advocates argue that the United States should further incorporate China into the current international liberal order to further entangle Chinese interests with the members of the international community. It is interests such as economic prosperity, economic ties, and security that advocates argue that the current international system provides to China. Hence, they contend that China will adopt democratic principles and values to further enjoy the mentioned benefits. In doing so, China will see that the current system works for it, and forgo any actions of trying to undermine the current Liberal International Order, and refrain from any military operations or nuclear strikes to impose its own new order. Friedberg argues that past Chinese actions to undermine current international institutions such as the World Bank weakens the argument for engagement because China has clearly shown that it is willing to create a new world order to the point that it isolated the United States from rising institutions, such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Secondly, Friedberg contends that China has actually walked away from embracing democratic principles to cracking down on Chinese liberties and rights. Extra Credit Minilateralism aligns with better balancing because minilateralism can serve as a precursor to more formal organizations that create permanent US alliances or economic ties with other states. Minilateralism involves a group of states that form thereof to accomplish a goal. Essentially, minilateralism is temporary in nature, not formal, and definitely not permanent. However, minilateralism can foster good US relations with other states to boost trust between the US and other states. As in the case of China, USA and India are not formal allies, but are partners that have the aligned interests of deterring Chinese aggression in Asia and the pacific ocean. A minilateral organization between India, USA, and Indonesia can perhaps be created to deal with, just for the sake of my answer, to deal with a natural disaster. India and Indonesia may then see the USA as trustworthy and reliable to make good on agreements and be there at all times, hence, India and Indonesia may seek to form a more formal military alliance with the US to deter Chinese aggression.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help